Delhi High Court
Pumps & Machinery Corporation vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 28 August, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ
petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioner by this writ petition
sought the quashing of the order dated 21.11.1996, by
which the Additional Commissioner (Water) vide order
dated 4.11.1996 had approved the decision not to
consider the bids of the petitioner being processed for
various projects in the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal Undertaking. The said Commissioner had
further ordered to debar the petitioner firm from
participating in further tenders till the clearance is
given by the Anti-Corruption Department.
3. Mr. G.D. Gandhi appearing for the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a Turnkey
contractor who had supplied and installed 7 flood pumps
to respondent No. 3. It is stated that there were some
complaints made against the petitioner having billed
and charged excess rates. The petitioner had duly
justified the rates charged on the basis that it had
not only sold but installed the pumps in question. Be
it may, the impugned order dated 21.11.1996 came to be
passed as Anti-Corruption Branch was investigating the
matter and had made the following observations:
"The investigations conducted so far indicate
that the firm has not been fair in its
dealings and in submitting their bids. Hence
the Anti-Corruption Branch withholds its
clearance for consideration the bids of M/s
Pump and Machinery Corporation".
4. It was on the basis of this observation
that the impugned order was passed. Mr. Gandhi submits
that despite passing of the said order the Surveyor of
Works of the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 3, vide its
letter dated 18.5.1998 appearing at page 45 had
informed the concerned Executive Engineer, New Delhi
Municipal Council that no order for black-listing the
petitioner from tendering in the department had been
issued so far. The said letter, however, does refer
the execution of two works relating to supply and
installation of pump sets in the department, which
were subsequently subjected to vigilance investigation
by the Anti-Corruption Branch and based on the said
investigation three officers of the Department had
been charge-sheeted. The issuance of the above letter
is rather curious keeping in mind that an order has
been passed on 21.11.1996. Be it may, it is not
necessary to delve any further in view of subsequent
developments, namely, the respondent and the Director
of Prosecution having withdrawn the prosecution
against the petitioner as well as other persons
accused of alleged offences. The withdrawal of
prosecution has been allowed by the Special Judge by
an order dated 31.10.2001.
5. In view of the foregoing developments,
learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
impugned order debarring the petitioner is no longer
operative. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of
as satisfied.
